Abstract

This paper discusses results of an adaptive study to scale out an integrated
village management system (IVMS), which successfully improved Bali cattle
productivity (Panjaitan et al 2008) in 36 farmer groups involving more
than 1000 farmers in Central Lombok
eastern Indonesia.
The IVMS was communicated to farmers by 12 well trained on ground team
members
(OGTs) using
a
farmer to farmer approach. The results show that the IVMS was
successfully scaled out to a wider farming community in Central Lombok with
a
similar increase in cattle productivity as reported by Panjaitan et al (2008).
Productivity of Bali cattle under small holder conditions can be more than
doubled by improving the supply and quality of nutrients according to the
physiological status of the animals and by improving housing/hygiene. Despite a
significant increase in cattle productivity, the
cattle population in the study area did not increase due to limited access to
land (for housing and to produce forages). However, the increase in turn off
rate has been considerably high.
The key to this successful scale out was the continuous facilitation by the OGTs
to stimulate collective actions in order to improve farmer capacity to adopt
improved management concepts.
Sustainability of this system has been constrained by lack of continuous
facilitation and by programs that discourage farmer participation.

Introduction

West Nusa
Tenggara Province (NTB) of eastern Indonesia consists of two main islands i.e.
Lombok and Sumbawa. This province is a major supplier of cattle in Indonesia.
Dahlanuddin et al (2008) reported that the cattle production system on Lombok is
predominantly semi-intensive and small-scale, with cattle often reared in
communal structures (kandangs). Communal kandangs originally emerged as a
strategy to protect against cattle theft, with members taking turns to watch
over cattle at night. Kandangs are now associated with farmer groups, though the
functionality of groups varies significantly, some formed simply to access
subsidized inputs from the government with little other activity. In the mid
2000s, there were approximately 800 farmer groups associated with the collective
cattle housing system, with the number of farmers ranging from 10 to 20 and the
number of cattle from 18 to 66 head of cattle in each group.

Improving
cattle productivity in the smallholder system has been difficult due to the
limited resources available to individual smallholder farmers to implement
technology. Collective action, involving group management of key resources to
implement practices is thus recommended to improve the uptake of new practices
by farmers.

An
Integrated Village Management System (IVMS, detailed below) has been reported to
significantly increase calving rate, reduce calf mortality and increase weaning
liveweight of Bali cattle under a collective housing system in Kelebuh village,
Central Lombok (Panjaitan et al 2008). Dahlanuddin et al (2012) demonstrated
that the growth rate of newly weaned Bali calves can be increased from 0.2 kg/d
to 0.38 kg/d by including fresh Sesbania grandiflora in the diet at
approximately 30%.

IVMS
practices were developed, tested and adapted in participation with farmers in
both individual and collective systems between 2001-2006 (Panjaitan et al 2008;
Lisson et al 2010). An adaptive research project was carried out from 2007
to 2010 to scale out these improved management strategies from only one farmer
group to 36 farmer groups involving about 1200 farmers in Central Lombok
district, NTB. This paper discusses the scale out processes and its impact on
Bali cattle productivity, and household livelihood.

Materials and methods

The intervention package scaled out in this study was an IVMS consisting of:

controlled mating with a community-selected bull from June to December (dry season) to enable peak calving to occur during March to June when feeds are in good supply and of reasonable quality

mating of cows 40-60 days after calving to enable the cow to get pregnant within 60 days after calving,

mating heifers at 18 months of age or 180 kg live weight,

weaning calves at 6 months of age to minimise nutritional burden of the cow,

feeding high protein and high energy feeds to cows during late pregnancy and lactation,

improving supply of high quality forages by introducing improved forages and locally available high quality forages, and

participatory group action to improve animal housing and hygiene.

The IVMS
was communicated using a systems approach. The approach takes into account all
aspects of beef cattle production systems beyond the technology aspect (e.g.
available land, labour and financial resources). Twelve On Ground Team members
(OGTs) were selected, trained and mentored to enable them to communicate the
IVMS, facilitate and support farmers in trialing and adjusting the system to
suit their conditions, and collect necessary data to measure progress. In the
first year, 23 new farmer groups were selected to learn about the IVMS package.
They were supported by the OGTs, and also through farmer to farmer learning process via
an established farmer group at Kelebuh village, Central Lombok. The capacity of
these farmer groups to implement the IVMS was then improved by regular training
and discussion with the OGTs and cross visits to other farmer groups. In the
second year, another 12 farmer groups were selected and engaged with the project
so by the beginning of year two there were a total of 36 farmer groups and each
OGT member was responsible for three farmer groups.

The
project provided one bull to each farmer group in their first year to be used
for mating during June to December of that year. As the price of bulls increase
each year all farmer groups were asked to arrange a mechanism to sustain the
bull without additional funding from the project.

The OGTs
were trained by a Project Specialist Team (PST) consisting of Australian and
Indonesian experts specializing in cattle nutrition, reproduction and health,
socio economics and communication. The OGTs spent Monday to Friday working with
farmers and collecting data, then attended a weekly meeting on Saturdays with
Specialist Team members to discuss weekly achievements and concerns and to
provide mentoring and training on a flexible and adaptive basis.

Implementation of some of the IVMS practices was essentially driven by the
farmer group as a starting point for participation in the project. However,
introduction of a project bull (and the means to sustainably manage it) and
starter funds to improve infrastructure led to all farmer groups trialing
controlled, natural mating and all farmer groups improving communal housing and
hygiene.

The timing
of mating and weaning and preferential feeding were individual farmer decisions,
and forage production was governed largely by the individual farmer (if she or
he had access to land for forage production) and partly by the group (in areas
with less available land, communal activities were necessary and more common).

Results

Collective
actions to facilitate technology adoption

Improvement in pen facilities

One of the constraints of the smallholder farmers to adopt
an
improved management system is the lack of capacity of individual farmers to
renovate pens (roof, floor,
mating space,
etc), improve feed troughs,
and
improve pen drainage. A
participatory, communal approach was taken to improve housing condition by
providing a small amount of stimulant funds to each group to be used on whatever
the group felt was the biggest infrastructure constraint. Farmers were then
encouraged to contribute cash or labour to match the stimulant funds and the
majority of groups did this successfully (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Estimated financial contributions of farmers to improve facilities of the collective housing to enable implementation of IVMS.

Renovations of the pens included:

improvement in the floor and drainage system to facilitate effective removal of urine and faeces

improvement of the roof to protect the cattle from hot sun and rains

establishment of a mating pen where the selected bull was housed to stimulate oestrous and to facilitate controlled mating

establishment of a feed trough in each pen to facilitate feeding improvement

establishment of a crush and weighing platform to enable regular weighing of cattle.

As
demonstrated in Figure 1, all farmer groups contributed a considerable amount of
funds on top of the amount provided by the project. Many groups invested more
than double the amount of project funds by encouraging contributions from group
members in the form of cash, building materials and labor.

Bull management

The bulls
provided by the project were selected together by the project team and
representatives of the farmer groups. The bulls were selected by a set of
criteria agreed by the project team and the farmers. These criteria included
coat color (to match the coat description of mature male Bali cattle), general
health condition, body conformation, scrotal circumference and some traditional
traits such as shape of the horn, length of the tail and temperament.

Funds for
the bulls were provided by the project in the first year only. The price of
bulls increased each year. In most of the participating farmer groups, a micro
finance system was established to generate additional funds to sustain the
bulls. A ‘bull keeper’ was democratically selected ineach group to be
responsible for feeding and care of the bull during the mating season. A mating
fee for every cow successfully mated was determined in a group meeting
(typically Rp 15,000 per mating for group members, and Rp. 25,000 per mating for
non group members). The bull keeper received up to 70% of the mating fees and
the remaining funds were retained by the group. At the end of the mating season,
the bull was sold and up to 70% of the profit went to the bull keeper and the
rest of the funds were returned to the group saving account. Group funds were
lent to group members at an agreed interest rate, to be paid back to the group
before the mating season started again.

Figure 2
illustrates the number of cows mated in each group from June to December 2009.
The numbers include cows belonging to group members and cows from farmers in
surrounding areas (satellite farmers). The satellite farmers came to mate their
cows at nearby project sites because they did not have their own bull and
because they heard from participating farmers that the project bull could
improve the genotype of the calves.

Figure 2. Number of cows successfully mated with the selected bull within the mating
season (note: the number of matings was limited by the number of cows in each
group and in the satellite area, not by the mating capacity of the bull).

Previously, farmers believed that one bull could mate with a maximum of 20 cows.
In some of the farmer groups, the selected project bull mated with 50 or more
cows during the mating season. There was also a general belief that if a bull is
used to mate cows too frequently, then the bull will not put on weight. In fact,
all project bulls gained weight and were sold at a competitive price, and
considerable profit, at the end of the mating period.

Adoption
of IVMS components

The most
commonly adopted component of the IVMS was controlled mating with a selected
bull at 40-60 days after calving (73.1% of farmers). This was followed by
feeding high quality feed to cows during late pregnancy (66.4%), weaning calves
at 6 months of age (60.3%), feeding high quality feeds to cows during lactation
(41.9%), better feed for newly weaned calves (38.4%), planting and use of
improved forages (34.5%) and mating heifers at 180 kg (12.8% of farmers).

The high
adoption rate of mating cows from 40-60 days after calving was due to the
availability of a selected bull in the collective housing system and the
improved mating performance of the bull. Farmers observed that the selected bull
had a high mating load, had amuch higher
success rate compared to artificial mating and may improve the phenotype of the
offspring. This is in accordance with Fahey et al (2000) that a selected bull
can improve genetic potential of up to 150 calves through his lifetime.

Planting
and use of improved forages was low because only 60% of the farmers had access
to free/available land. The most common introduced forages were Brachiaria
brizantha x ruziziensis (cv. Mulato) and Panicum maximum (cv.
Simuang). Mulato and Simuang are now widely distributed throughout the area.
Grasses are preferred over the introduced legumes (Centrosema pascuorum,
Stylosanthes guyanensis and Clitoria ternatea) because these
legumes rely on seeds to be multiplied while grasses can be multiplied by
vegetative transplant. Improved forages were mostly planted on bunds surrounding
the rice field. These modest plantings are not able to account for all feed
requirements, however farmers reported forage plots, especially near the home,
helped relieve pressure on the household during times when the farmer was not
able to spend time undertaking cut and carry activities (eg. during peak farming
periods or due to illness).

Adoption
of mating heifers at 180 kg was low because not all farmers had heifers or
retained female calves as replacement of breeding cows. This is because calves
(males or females) are commonly sold as early as 6 months of age when farmers
need cash.

Scaling
out information from participating farmer groups to ‘satellite’ farmers
(individual farmers in close proximity to the participating farmer groups, but
not part of them) was not a priority for the project. However over 400 satellite
farmers adopted some of the IVMS components. The provision of an effective
mating service at a reasonable cost (and hence controlled mating) were the
entry point. According to a survey of satellite farmers, while there was a high
level of engagement with project farmers in the use and benefits of the bull,
there was little additional information shared on other IVMS components, and
hence only minimal adoption was noted during the project. Where additional IVMS
practices had been adopted by a satellite farmer, this was often due to strong
connections to a group member (eg. family or friend); a particularly active
champion within the group that provided more information; and/or close proximity
that allowed satellite farmers to ‘be inspired’ by the benefits they saw in the
group.

Of note is
that the average distance a satellite farmer travelled for bull services was
1km (i.e. to address their most pressing production constraint). This suggests
that project influence might be felt within a 1km ‘halo’ from the project group,
but rarely further without family or strong inter-group connections.

Discussion

Improved
access to a selected bull

Availability of a quality bull is important to a successful cow-calf system.
Fahey et al (2000) suggested that effective bull selection can ensure rapid
genetic improvement of a herd. One bull can influence genetic potential of up to
150 calves during his lifetime, while an individual female can improve the
genetic potential of up to only 10 progeny in her lifetime.

Dahlanuddin et al (2008) reported that 200 out of 486 farmer groups in Lombok
focusing on a cow-calf system do not own or have access to bulls. This is likely
to have been the main cause of the reported low calving rate. Providing one
selected bull for every farmer group in this project has facilitated timely
mating (indicated by high percentage of cows mated 40-60 days after calving) and
contributed to the subsequent increase in calving rate (87%).

It has
been a general belief amongst farmers that a bull can serve a maximum of 20
cows. This study showed that a bull can serve more than 100 cows within the 6
month mating period (Figure 2) with an average bull:cow ratio of 2.1%. This
bull:cow ratio is lower than the bull:cow ratio of 2.5-6% generally applied
under free grazing system with shorter mating period in northern Australia
(McGowan et al 2002). There was also a general belief that if a bull is used to
mate the cows too frequently, then the bull will not gain liveweight. In fact,
all project bulls gained liveweight and were sold at a competitive price at the
end of the mating period.

Access to
the selected bull was facilitated in this project by establishing collective
action for managing and sustaining the bull in each farmer group. The bull
management system established in this project (selection and purchase of bull,
establishment of mating pen and bull keeping arrangement) ensured that the bull
keeper and the group members have mutual benefit, which is an important factor
for sustainability of the system.

Consistent
farmer training has improved farmer knowledge on good bull management and use.
The bull management system has increased the capacity of farmer groups to
conduct timely mating of their cows which would not be possible without
collective action. This also increased the social capital of the group in
solving their problem of lack of suitable bull for mating. Patrick et al (2010)
suggested that government development programs using farmer groups to increase
cattle production should also aim to foster group trust and good leadership if
they wish to move beyond short term smallholder welfare to better market
connectivity and industry efficiency. The elevated levels of social capital are
a positive indication of such a shift in the project groups.

Improved
herd productivity as a result of better feeding and better management

Calving
rate increased by more than 30% over the calving rate reported by Talib et al
(2003). This is due to increased adoption of mating cows 40 days after calving.
This result would be otherwise difficult to achieve as many of these farmer
group did not have access to a suitable bull for mating prior to the project.

Improved
cow nutrition, better sanitation and better management successfully reduced calf
mortality to less than 5%. Calf mortality in NTB was reported to be 15% and in
drier area such as West Timor, the mortality can be as high as 48% (Talib et al
2003). A related study (Dahlanuddin et al 2009) indicated that the major
causes of calf mortality were sanitation related diseases such as scouring/
diarrhoea, injury or bad handling or birth issues (eg premature birth, failure
to suckle after birth, still birth, swollen head, very weak at birth). The
majority of calf mortality was noted in the period of 0-60 days after calving.
This information suggests that calf mortality could be even lower if animal
handling skills are improved and hygiene and housing conditions continue to be
enhanced.

Improved
mating management and better nutrition of cows, especially during late pregnancy
and lactation, increased the proportion of cows returning to oestrus quickly,
enabling them to be mated early and pregnant within 60 days after calving. This
reduced the inter-calving interval from the 16 months commonly observed in NTB
region to 12.4 months (Table 1).

Uptake of
the IVMS components by farmers also increased calf weaning weight at six months
of age to 90.2 kg. This is higher than the 83.9 kg weaning weight for Bali
calves in NTB reported by Talib et al (2003). Further, the weaning weight
reported by Talib et al (2003) may have been for a calf of more than six months
of age, as there was no farmer practiced weaning of calves in the 36 farmer
groups before the project started. A more recent study (Panjaitan et al 2008)
reported that the weaning weight of calves in the farmer group when this IVMS
was initiated (then involved in this current study) was 70 kg.

The high
weaning weight for calves born in the project means that the calves had a high
pre weaning average daily gain (ADG) of 0.50 kg/day. This can be attributed to
improved cow nutrition and thus milk production. Imran (2013) reported that milk
production in Central Lombok was 0.97 kg/day for cows fed native grass only and
increased to 1.47 kg/day for cows supplemented with 30% fresh sesbania
grandiflora during late pregnancy and during lactation. Also,
Supriyadi (2015) reported a higher pre weaning ADG of 0.38 kg/day for calves
from cows receiving tree legumes throughout pregnancy and lactation compared to
0.14 kg for calves from cows given king grass ad libitum through out pregnancy
and lactation.

Much of
the improvement in cattle production can be attributed to improved cow
nutrition. These improvements include feeding sufficient quantity of feeds and
feeding high quality feeds to late pregnant and lactating cows. This is made
possible by improved pen condition and improved farmer understanding on how much
to feed and what feed to provide to cattle in different physiological stages.
Simple examples of these recommendations are for farmers to always make note of
feed refusals in the trough and to feed improved grasses and/or legumes to
cattle on a regular basis.

The
increased turn off rate

Adoption
of project practices resulted in significant increases in important productivity
indicators. However, despite the significant increase in calving rate and
reduction in calf mortality, cattle population in the study area did not
increase substantially (Figure 3). Herd dynamics data suggest that while herd
size remained relatively stable, births and sales increased.

As a
result of participation in the project, farmers were able to sell animals at a
younger age due to increased liveweight gain between birth and weaning,
resulting in a market-ready animal that required fewer inputs for the same
financial outcome. In this way, farmers realised their objective of increasing
reproductive potential and converting this to greater throughput and increased
sales without overt strain on forage or housing resources.

Figure 3. Herd dynamics in the first 23 farmer groups from August 2008 to November 2010.

The
factors contributing to the increased sale of young cattle in the region include
a) farmers need cash to meet immediate costs associated with daily household
consumption, school fees etc., b) farmers do not have space to plant forages to
feed more cattle (37% farmers in this study do not have access to land) or do
not have enough space to house more cattle, and c) many farmers are keepers not
producers (i.e. they manage other people’s cattle and must sell the cattle when
the owners want to do so).

Nevertheless, there was a significant increase in overall cattle productivity.
Based on the values for calving rate, calf mortality and weaning weight given in
Table 1, productivity per 100 cows more than doubled from 3687kg to 7454kg.

Sustainability of the system

With
limited space in existing kandangs to house new animals and little additional
land to grow forages to feed them, increased productivity creates a challenge to
the sustainability of the system in this resource limited environment. However,
the systems are still functioning in many farmer groups.

Based on a
recent post project survey conducted during August – December 2015 (Dahlanuddin
et al 2015 unpublished) three farmer groups are no longer active and 33 farmer
groups are still functioning. Only four out of the 36 farmer groups involved in
the project continue to implement all the IVMS components with the remaining
groups implement some components only. Current adoption profiles can be detailed
as follows:

Use of selected bulls are implemented by a majority of farmers in all of the 33 active farmer groups (100% of active farmer groups). However, not all farmer groups implement bull management as they used to do during the project life. They mostly use bulls belonging to a group member. This is because mutual agreement on the use of project bull is no longer effective.

Mating heifers at 18 months of age is implemented by a majority of farmers in 29 farmer groups (88% of active farmer groups)

Planting and use of improved forages are implemented by a majority of farmers in 28 farmer groups (85% of active farmer groups)

Mating cows 40-60 days after calving are implemented by a majority of farmers in 20 farmer groups (61% of active farmer groups)

Feeding improved feeds to late pregnant and lactating cows is implemented by a majority of farmers in 12 farmer groups (36% of active farmer groups)

Feeding better feeds to newly weaned calves is implemented by a majority of farmers in 9 farmer groups (27% of active farmer groups)

Weaning calves at 6 months is implemented by a majority of farmers in only 7 farmer groups (21% of active farmer groups)

In depth
interviews with farmers representing active and less active farmer groups
indicated that low post-project adoption of IVMS components was due to lack of
facilitation by OGT after the project was completed. No follow on facilitation
was supported by government or non government agencies. It seems that farmers
prefer continuous facilitation as it is difficult for farmer groups to identify,
test and adopt new practices and technology using their own resources.

Some
groups voluntarily record the birth date of their calves. One of the external
factors that motivate the farmer groups to continue implementing the IVMS is the
premium price offered by the local government (as part of their beef cattle
improvement program) for fast growing calves of known age. Some of the better
performing groups have been regularly visited by scientists and farmers from
other parts of Indonesia and some international visitors, as examples of good
practice in herd management. Unfortunately, the cattle markets do not offer any
price incentive for high quality Bali cattle such as weaned calves with high
weaning weight and known birth date. Cattle are commonly priced based on height
(for breeding stock) or by the trader’s best estimate of carcass weight (for
slaughter cattle) while qualitative traits such as weight for age, or quality of
a heifer for breeding, have little influence on the price.

Ideally,
the market should be a key driver for widespread and sustainability of the IVMS
innovation (Triomphe and Rajalahti, 2013). However, as there is little price
incentive for high quality cattle produced from a system with better feeding and
management, scaling out of the IVMS is not market driven.

Sustainability of the system is also challenged by programs both from government
and non government agencies that provide hand outs without encouraging farmer
participation and pay little attention to improving farmer capacity to trial,
adopt and adapt new practices. While well intentioned, many programs focus on
increasing herd size, rather than increasing farmer benefit and create a
challenge to maintain farmer participation and motivation to improve cattle
productivity based on existing resources.

Conclusions

Uptake
of IVMS by farmers resulted in Bali cattle productivity in Central Lombok
more than doubling regional baselines for a calf-cow system. Key
productivity indicators such as calving rate, birth weight, calf mortality
rate and weaning weight improved as a result of project participation, but
the improved performance of the system was observed as increased throughput,
not increased herd size. In a region of limited space for housing and feed,
farmers were able to convert this new efficiency into increased sales
without excessive strain on existing resources.

Uptake
of IVMS was facilitated by the well trained and mentored OGT, who
successfully introduced the IVMS approach to more than 1500 farmers in four
years. Ongoing support and facilitation of collective actions by OGTs
improved both farm productivity and the capacity of farmer groups to trial,
adopt and adapt new practices.

The
practices promoted by the project were largely built on existing knowledge (eg
forages and feeding, cattlemanagement) and infrastructure (eg housing) and
further developing how resources can be perceived and optimized. This, along
with the empowerment and social capital that communal success nurtures, has
made adoption of IVMS more accessible for many households.

Expansion of IVMS from the project groups to non-project ’satellite’ groups
was limited by limited access to information and subsequent uncertainty of
the value of IVMS components, other than access to a quality bull being
housed nearby. It seems therefore, to achieve widespread geographical
benefit and impact over longer distances, that replication of key components
to an increased number of farmer groups seems more viable (or faster) than
farmer to farmer interactions.

Sustainability of this system could be supported by programs that encourage
better use and management of existing resources, farmer participation,
communal action, provision and facilitation of information and innovation,
and that support the development of market incentives for enhanced
production.

Acknowledgement

This
project was funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research (ACIAR). The authors acknowledge support and contributions from the
OGTs, the farmers and the rest of the project team, particularly Bruce Pengelly,
Clemens Grunbuhel and A. Muzani. The authors also thank Dr Simon Qugley of
University of Queensland for his inputs during preparation of this manuscript.